Questioning McQueary

Former Penn state officials Tim Curley and Gary Schultz have been charged with not reporting possible sexual abuse and perjury in connection with the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal. Then-graduate assistant Mike McQueary came to the two men in 2001 -- although McQueary said it had happened in 2002 -- to tell them that he had seen Sandusky in the Penn State football showers with a young boy.

But what specific words did McQueary use when telling the two men what he had witnessed? The perjury charge, which is a felony, hangs on different answers to that questions.

At the December preliminary hearing, attorneys for Curley and Schultz argued that McQueary's version wasn't that much different from their clients'. Mean- while, other witnesses, including Joe Paterno, gave their versions of what McQueary had told them.

We've compiled all the testimony and compared it. How different? You be the judge.

What McQueary testified he saw

McQueary says that, late one Friday night, he went to the Penn State football locker room and heard slapping noises coming from the shower. Through a mirror, he says, he saw Sandusky standing directly behind a young boy.

"The boy was up against the wall, facing the wall, his hands maybe shoulder height on the wall. And Jerry was directly behind him in a very, very close postition with Jerry's hands wrapped around his waist or midsection.

"I couldn't see his actual hands, but his arms were wrapped around. And it appeared upon looking the second time, I said to myself, they're in a very sexually oriented -- a very sexual position."

Mike McQueary, testifying at a hearing

Significance:

This will be part of the case against Sandusky, but what McQueary saw is not important to Curley and Schultz. In their case, it's all about how McQueary described the incident to the two men.

The case against curley and Schultz

The perjury case against Tim Curley and Gary Schultz is not about what Mike McQueary saw. It's about what he told the two men roughly one week later. The officials both say McQueary was vague and nondescriptive. McQueary says he was explicit about seeing something sexual.

Schultz's version is closer to McQueary's -- he admits that McQueary might have seen Sandusky grab the boy's genitals. Curley only remembers McQueary talking about something "inappropriate."

Here are their versions of this crucial meeting:

McQueary

"I told them that I saw Jerry in the showers with a young boy and that what I had seen was extremely sexual and over the lines and it was wrong. I would have said that Jerry was in there in very close proximity behind a young boy with his arms wrapped around him. ... I would have described that it was extremely sexual and that I thought that some kind of intercourse was going on."

Schultz

"My recollection was McQueary and Joe [Paterno] both only described what was observed in a very general way. There was no details. .... I had the feeling that there was perhaps some kind of wrestling around activity and maybe Jerry might have grabbed the young boy's genitals or something of that sort ... The allegations came across as not that serious. It didn't appear at that time, based on what was reported, to be that serious, that a crime had occurred. We had no indication a crime had occurred."

Curley

"My recollection was that he was uncomfortable they were in the shower and it was just the two of them and that they were horsing around and .... inappropriate conduct. I think he felt that this just didn't feel right ... I don't remember any report to me that it was sexual in nature .... Based on what I heard that was reported to me, I just didn't feel it was appropriate that Jerry would be in a shower area with a young person. Whether it was horsing around or however you want to describe it."

The other witnesses

McQueary told three other people about what he saw. Are their stories more like what McQueary told the grand jury he witnessed or more like what Schultz and Curley say they heard? Again, you be the judge.

John McQueary

McQueary told his dad what he'd witnessed im- mediately afterward. Together, they decided that McQueary should talk to coach Joe Paterno in the morning. Weeks later, McQueary and his boss, Dr. Jonathan Dranov, met with Schultz on unrelated busi- ness. At the preliminary hearing, John McQueary said he reiterated to Schultz what his son had explained.

"He saw Jerry Sandusky in the shower, in the shower area, the shower room, with a young boy and that between the sounds that he observed and the visualization that he saw, that there was something at best inappropriate going on and it was sexual in nature."

Significance:

This is expected to be part of the corroborating evidence that prosecutors need to prove the perjury charge.

Jonathan Dranov

When Dranov testified before the grand jury, he said he asked McQueary three times if he'd seen anything in the shower, and three times McQueary said -- no.' According to Dranov, McQueary said he heard "sex sounds" and the shower running, and saw a young boy stuck his head around the corner of the shower stall, peering at McQueary as an adult arm reached around his waist and pulled him back out of view. Seconds later, Sandusky left the shower in a towel.

Significance:

The defense will likely use this to argue that McQueary offered different versions of what he saw.

Joe Paterno

According to McQueary, this is what he told coach Paterno: "I had saw Jerry with a young boy in the shower and that it was way over the lines. It was extremely sexual in nature ... The rough positioning I would have described, but not in very much detail."

According to Paterno, this is what he recalled McQueary saying: "He had seen a person, an older -- not an older, but a mature person who was fondling, whatever you might call it -- I'm not sure what the term would be -- a young boy."

Paterno identified the man as Sandusky and said McQueary made it clear he saw something inappropriate.

"I don't know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the

youngster. It was a sexual nature. I'm not sure exactly what it was."

Significance:

Because Paterno died in January of complications of lung cancer and was never cross-examined by the defense, it's unclear whether his statements will make it into court.

Related Stories

Featured Story

Get 'Today's Front Page' in your inbox

This newsletter is sent every morning at 6 a.m. and includes the morning's top stories, a full list of obituaries, links to comics and puzzles and the most recent news, sports and entertainment headlines.

optionalCheck here if you do not want to receive additional email offers and information.See our privacy policy

Thank you for signing up for 'Today's Front Page'

To view and subscribe to any of our other newsletters, please click here.